Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Facebook | Twitter | All Access E-Edition | Home RSS
 
 
 
Latest Post:
Started By:
Rank:
Category
96 days ago.
by slinky
harryanderson
#1

Thankfully, the anti-science propaganda campaign surrounding man-made climate change seems to have lost some of its effect.

Are you seeing storm clouds on the horizon? Two recent studies suggest that the latest anti-science campaign is following its forerunners--the propaganda campaigns attempting to refute science that tobacco causes cancer, that CFC's caused the hole in the ozone layer, and so on—into oblivion. Global warming denial seems to have climbed to a peak in 2010, and global warming acceptance is now climbing. This bodes well for rational public policy.

 
 

Member Comments

Sure hope you hold your breath till that fantasy happens !

Posted 96 days ago.

Kunectdots

Random21 - YEP! According to recent reports that disappearance of the Earth's ice caps isn't entirely going according to Al Gore's predictions.

After the arise of a Marco Rubio presidency, Al Gore will become but a footnote.

Posted 96 days ago.

Rubio ?? Peter Pan ??? Not real swift are you ?

Posted 98 days ago.

RANDOM21

You're well acquainted with fairies, you should know. What does this have to do with Antarctica gaining more ice than it was losing? You want to talk Hillary, start new thread.

Posted 99 days ago.

Yeah but what would tinkerbell do ?

Posted 99 days ago.

Kunectdots

You underestimate those "old folks", I consider myself to be one of them. WE remember another "wet behind the ears" senator running for the same office in 1960.

Posted 99 days ago.

Hope springs eternal , but Rubio has no chance . Old folks wont like him and besides he cant leave never never land and the lost boys !

Posted 99 days ago.

Kunectdots

Hillary falling with Rubio climbing.

2016 General Election: Rubio vs. Clinton

h ttp://elections.huffingtonpost.c om/pollster/2016-general-election-rubio-vs-clinton

Comparison of Hillary Clinton and Marco Rubio

h ttp://presidential-candidates.insidegov.c om/compare/40-50/Hillary-Clinton-vs-Marco-Rubio

Posted 100 days ago.

Oh yeah , all those senior citizens will vote for a kid still wet behind the ears ! Besides Hillary would mop the floor with his arse !

Posted 100 days ago.

Kunectdots

"your sides answer to our health care excesses ?"

ANSWER - Marco Rubio. He's in like Flint, Baby.

Posted 100 days ago.

So all whining and bi tching but whats your sides answer to our health care excesses ?

Posted 101 days ago.

RANDOM21

Only when the Government subsidizes the development and implementation and forces competing, proven sources out of the picture, can it happen. Same as Obama care, neither pays without Government manipulation of the markets.

Posted 110 days ago.

harryanderson

Like Inglis and Laffer (who might be considered the architect of conservative supply-side economics) wrote,

"We would clean the air, create wealth and jobs through a new technology boom and drastically improve our national security."

Sounds to me like paying the bills.

Posted 112 days ago.

harryanderson

Green energy is cutting it in America. Solar power, in particular, is coming on line rapidly.

Posted 112 days ago.

RANDOM21

Seven years later and we are still in an economy stagnated by an administration hellbent on destroying the one thing that would help pull us out of the morass we are in. Cheap energy. We couldn't produce enough electricity to power the industry we once had. Replacement power is not available and green renewables just won't cut it. Someday it may be possible but not now. Hope and change doesn't pay the bills.

Posted 112 days ago.

harryanderson

Random21 asks why we should tax carbon and use the revenue to reduce individual and corporate income taxes.

I’ll let Ronald Reagans’s chief economic advisor, Arthur Laffer , and former Republican Congressman Bob Inglis answer that.

According to Inglis and Laffer, reducing income and corporate taxes spurs economic growth. They wrote,

“We need to impose a tax on the thing we want less of (carbon dioxide) and reduce taxes on the things we want more of (income and jobs).”

“Instead of discouraging businesses from hiring more employees, it would discourage business from producing more pollution.”

“We would clean the air, create wealth and jobs through a new technology boom and drastically improve our national security.”

ht tp://ww w.nytimes.co m/2008/12/28/opinion/28inglis.html?_r=0

Posted 112 days ago.

RANDOM21

Government doesn't have a lack of taxes, it has a severe excess spending problem. You can not get out of a hole by digging deeper. And a moment of well deserved silence for the recently departed. It won't last long.

Posted 112 days ago.

RANDOM21

They reduced income tax on people and corporations and offset that with the carbon tax. Why make necessities more expensive for the people who can least afford the increase and reduce income taxes on those that the carbon tax won't effect?

Posted 112 days ago.

harryanderson

That's a good point, Random21. I hadn't considered that. Maybe BC's example can't be directly applied to us, since, as you point out, they're far ahead of us in deploying renewable energy.

A carbon tax would undoubtedly help us catch up.

Posted 112 days ago.

RANDOM21

Why do some people try to correlate what happens in small areas and populations to the vast area and population of the United States? We are unlike any country in the world and their policies will not and cannot work here. BC gets most if not all their electricity from hydro dams on their many rivers. The extra tax on gasoline has caused fuel consumption to lessen mainly due to drivers border shopping and getting fuel in the USA. Looks good on paper but reality raises its nasty head.

Posted 112 days ago.
 
 
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
*Password:
Remember my email address.
or